Opinion
NO. 01-12-00182-CR
04-19-2012
IN RE OSCAR NATHANIEL SCOTT, Relator
On Appeal from the 263rd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1208957B
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Oscar Nathaniel Scott, has filed pro se a petition for writ of mandamus in which he complains that he has not received any written response or communication from the Harris County district clerk or the State of Texas regarding his pending application for writ of habeas corpus, which he filed in the trial court below. Appellant further complains that he has not been appointed counsel and the trial court has not forwarded or transmitted his application for writ of habeas corpus, with all exhibits, attachments, answers, and findings, to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
On March 8, 2012, we issued an opinion denying the petition. Scott filed a motion for rehearing. We grant Scott's motion for rehearing, and we withdraw our March 8, 2012 opinion denying the petition for writ of mandamus.
On September 13, 2010, we affirmed Scott's conviction for the offense of possession of cocaine weighing less than one gram.See Scott v. State, No. 01-09-00928-CR, 2010 WL 3718598, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 23, 2010, pet. ref'd) (mem. op.). We noted in our opinion that, after finding true the allegations in two enhancement paragraphs that Scott had previously been convicted of two felony offenses, the trial court assessed Scott's punishment at confinement for five years. Id. at *1. Scott's petition, and the trial and appellate court records, reflect that Scott seeks relief from a final felony conviction. The exclusive remedy from final felony convictions is a writ of habeas corpus. Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (Vernon 2005); Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for theEighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717-18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). Thus, this Court is without authority to grant the relief Scott seeks. See Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene, 910 S.W.2d at 483; In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d at 717-18; see also In re Berry, No. 01-11-00855-CR, 2012 WL 253142, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 26, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) ("We have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in criminal law matters pertaining to habeas corpus proceedings in which relief is sought from a final felony judgment. That jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals."). We dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Huddle. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.102(3)(D), 481.115(a), (b) (Vernon 2010).